AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would say ”refugees returned to the country where they were previously tortured" if you want to be crystal clear on the sequence of events
 
Jintor said:
I would say ”refugees returned to the country where they were previously tortured" if you want to be crystal clear on the sequence of events
Click to expand...

Nice, I had this: Australia sends refugees back to country where they were already tortured.

But with your extra nice vocabulary I think I will use 'Australia sends refugees back to country where they were previously tortured'.
 
There is nothing that we could conceivably do, including reviving the slave trade, that would actually have any ramifications from the U.N. - the U.S. would veto any adverse action in the security council (the only enforcement arm of the U.N) after a simple phone call.
 
Giving such a diverse range of countries veto powers has worked out so well -_-

Dead Man said:
Do you have that larger?
Click to expand...
It's the weirdest thing, it's going around Twitter really small with the Council logo on it but the source they link to on their Facebook page is this article

http://tamilfightback.com/australia-sending-tamil-victims-back-to-torture-chambers-relative/


Also Dead Man, is it worth adding in a section about our history with Sri Lanka and our recent reduction of the requirements to send people back?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...imes-inquiry-in-sri-lanka-20140328-35moj.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-17/abbott-confirms-sri-lanka-boats-deal/5097580
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-25/morrison-pushes-for-asylum-seeker-processing-overhaul/5549388
 
Dryk said:
Giving such a diverse range of countries veto powers has worked out so well -_-


It's the weirdest thing, it's going around Twitter really small with the Council logo on it but the source they link to on their Facebook page is this article

http://tamilfightback.com/australia-sending-tamil-victims-back-to-torture-chambers-relative/


Also Dead Man, is it worth adding in a section about our history with Sri Lanka and our recent reduction of the requirements to send people back?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...imes-inquiry-in-sri-lanka-20140328-35moj.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-17/abbott-confirms-sri-lanka-boats-deal/5097580
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-25/morrison-pushes-for-asylum-seeker-processing-overhaul/5549388
Click to expand...

That is weird. I'll see if I can squeeze in some info about the history and requirements too.

Edit: She's up.
 
Great thread, Dead Man. Nailed it.

It being in Australian prime time is good for the local audience. Hope it can get bumped during US prime time so they can share in how despicable our government is.
 
Dastardly Jerks said:
Great thread, Dead Man. Nailed it.

It being in Australian prime time is good for the local audience. Hope it can get bumped during US prime time so they can share in how despicable our government is.
Click to expand...

Cheers. Thanks for the links all. If there are any changes that need to be made let me know. I have just seen that I didn't update the title to use Jintors wording :/
 
Decent crowd outside parliament house, looked like they were about to burn a big Abbott effigy. Took a photo so will post it when I get back to melb if it turned out ok (was in a car)

Also got a fancy backstage tour of parliament house, walked past tonys office. Told him the lanisters send their regards. (even though he wasn't there)
 
Also whys Australia such a hickwardly backwater?

No legalised marijuana, even for medical reasons.

No gay marriage.

The USA is making us look like a bunch of 15th century sewerage plunderers.
 
Kind of dreading the new senate. Being how the main parties react towards each other (usually blocking each others motions), we are now in a situation where Palmer united (and a handful of other crackpotsinteresting people) hold the balance of power, I am still wondering if that's any better or worse than the Libs controlling the senate.
 
I'm worried about yet another christian fundie and now a libertarian. Although we also have them running around in major parties already I guess.

Le sigh.
 
x3n05 said:
Kind of dreading the new senate. Being how the main parties react towards each other (usually blocking each others motions), we are now in a situation where Palmer united (and a handful of other crackpotsinteresting people) hold the balance of power, I am still wondering if that's any better or worse than the Libs controlling the senate.
Click to expand...

One side holding all the power, whatever side it is, is always a bad idea.
 
Yagharek said:
I'm worried about yet another christian fundie and now a libertarian. Although we also have them running around in major parties already I guess.

Le sigh.
Click to expand...
I'm kinda amazed the right wing press didn't get up in a puff over the gunnuts "shooting howard" spiel.
 
Breaking news: Andrew Bolt has just had an aneurysm after hearing the high court's decision. Also Ray Hadley has been sighted in a rubber dinghy racing up the Sydney harbour. Destination unknown, he was seen buying a crate of vegemite before departure.
 
Anyone watch Q&A with the panel of economists? Might be damning it with faint praise but it was more watch-able than usual, if perhaps less lively.

That said, I thought Judith Sloan's performance was pretty pathetic (shocker). In a rare moment when she wasn't trying to patronise Joseph Stiglitz (she basically said he was lying when he said that some Australians had told him they wanted a society/economy more like America's), he mentioned that even the IMF has started to recognise the negative consequences of inequality and that the IMF is very much not a left wing organisation. Judith: "It increasingly is." Yes Judith, it's not the Emperor's New Clothes have been so thoroughly discredited that even the tailor can see through them, clearly it's the IMF itself that has changed. Maybe they did a staff swap with the ABC.
 
A More Normal Bird said:
Anyone watch Q&A with the panel of economists? Might be damning it with faint praise but it was more watch-able than usual, if perhaps less lively.

That said, I thought Judith Sloan's performance was pretty pathetic (shocker). In a rare moment when she wasn't trying to patronise Joseph Stiglitz (she basically said he was lying when he said that some Australians had told him they wanted a society/economy more like America's), he mentioned that even the IMF has started to recognise the negative consequences of inequality and that the IMF is very much not a left wing organisation. Judith: "It increasingly is." Yes Judith, it's not the Emperor's New Clothes have been so thoroughly discredited that even the tailor can see through them, clearly it's the IMF itself that has changed. Maybe they did a staff swap with the ABC.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think most pan-national unaccountable bureaucracies are absurdly left wing, but that's not really relevant. We should ignore the IMF because they're morons who've spent an astonishing amount of resources into popping up a currency that's causing misery for millions of people. Not because they're Stalinists or Thatcherites or whatever.
 
Arksy said:
I don't know, I think most pan-national unaccountable bureaucracies are absurdly left wing, but that's not really relevant. We should ignore the IMF because they're morons who've spent an astonishing amount of resources into popping up a currency that's causing misery for millions of people. Not because they're Stalinists or Thatcherites or whatever.
Click to expand...
Something we agree on! Though other than the fact that it's a pan-national unaccountable bureaucracy I don't see what's left wing about the IMF: after Bretton Woods was abandoned it seemed to decide that the zealous promotion of neoliberal economics was its new raison d’etre. Stiglitz actually wrote about it:
The IMF is like so many bureaucracies; it has repeatedly sought to extend what it does, beyond the objectives originally assigned to it. As IMF’s mission creep brought it outside its core area of competency in macroeconomics, into structural issues such as privatisation, labour markets, pension reforms and so forth …
Click to expand...
His point wasn't that we should listen to the IMF, but that even they can't ignore the evolving understanding of the topic (or at least the mainstream understanding). Judith then showed that she was perfectly capable of ignoring new information and that anyone who wasn't must have turned into a communist. It was just a very irritating performance to watch. She actually broke out the sing song kindergarten teacher voice and added "right?" and "ok?" to the ends of her sentences at one point.
 
Arksy said:
I don't know, I think most pan-national unaccountable bureaucracies are absurdly left wing, but that's not really relevant. We should ignore the IMF because they're morons who've spent an astonishing amount of resources into popping up a currency that's causing misery for millions of people. Not because they're Stalinists or Thatcherites or whatever.
Click to expand...

If your talking about pre- GFC IMF (and World Bank for that matter) then that statement is so patently absurd that no even remotely rational human being could support it.

It is still wrong if we are talking about now. Just because they have embraced some elements of Keynesianism does not mean that they are "absurdly left wing." Remember it is currently run by a French Tory.
 
Oh god, that woman asking the question to Stiglitz akin to "Fuck off, we're full" or "Go back to where you came from". Shaking my fucking head. "Why don't you make the same changes to the US economy if you think it'll be so good for Australia?" is the stupidest question I think I've ever heard on there.
 
So many Liberal supporters on Twitter angry that the High Court even exists SMFH

I wish we could create a country for them somewhere with a permanent Liberal majority and no High Court or Upper House so they could learn their lesson
 
Dryk said:
So many Liberal supporters on Twitter angry that the High Court even exists SMFH

I wish we could create a country for them somewhere with a permanent Liberal majority and no High Court or Upper House so they could learn their lesson
Click to expand...

This happens almost every single time the High Court blocks something that people agree with. When Gillard's Malaysian Swap Solution was blocked without a change in the legislation the PM herself came out and lashed out against the Chief Justice. When Mabo was decided we had government ministers saying that if people on the court wanted to play politics they should step down and run for parliament.

Nothing new here.

Morons are morons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
10K
Mista replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
938
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
17K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
Love Boat 2 [Mafia] |OT| Electric Boogalove
97 98 99 100 101
5K
281K
Zippedpinhead replied
  • Locked
What relaxes you the most?
0
4K
Halo is Back replied
Top Bottom